Where there any Italian Generals who opposed Italy's Alliance

>>2577927
There were plenty when the Allies invaded Italy

File: tenor.gif (977KB, 320x212px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 320x212px

>>2577927
>italian generals

File: Gabriele_D'Anunnzio.png (150KB, 261x370px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 261x370px

>>2577927
I dont think he was still a general at that point, but he was always important

>>2577950
he was already sidelined by the mid 1920s though

Is Mussolini not remaining neutral the greatest tragedy of fascism?

>>2578290

YES.

>>2578290
he has nothing to blame but himself for that. he saw hitler beat france and he became greedy to seize as much land in france's southeast, the balkans and africa as he possibly could. the problem was that the italian army wasn't even prepared enough to even fight for these peripheral territories. his fear that hitler was grabbing all the land for himself also clouded his judgement over the feasibility of actually winning a war against Britain and Russia

File: marconi_fiume.jpg (45KB, 630x374px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x374px

>>2578290
D'Annunzio not marching on Rome himself was what killed fascism in the crib. Everything that happened afterwards was a farce.

>>2578370
the march on rome was nothing more than political theater. the deal to accept mussolini had already been accomplished behind closed doors. what made the march successful at all was the fact that fascists had been rampaging against communists, socdems and any other opposition forces to them. this was done with the connivance of state officials and police. Had the central government really wanted, it could have destroyed the black shirts with the army. The same could have been easily done with the black shirts marching on Rome. The problem by that time, however, was that the King had tired of the parliamentary system and so did the leading parliamentarians themselves (most notably salandra). On top of that, any parliamentarians who favored the status quo were themselves demoralized by the deadlock in parliament while on the other hand, they were more than glad to see the suppression of the communists by the blackshirts. This latter sentiment led conservatives and centrists to the false belief that Mussolini could be coopted if he were accommodated in the parliamentary system. The incumbent PM, the aging Giolitti, had used this very same tactic with the socialists; he coopted them into the parliamentary system, declared the government neutrality against strike action by workers and before WWI introduced universal manhood suffrage.
Anyway, to get back to the point, D'Annunzio had never come close to Marching on Rome or accomplishing the coup that Mussolini achieved because he wasn't as well placed as Mussolini to take command of the Revolutionary (or counterrevolutionary you might call it) wave of violence unleashed by the black shirts, whose movement spread throughout northern Italy. Perhaps D'Annunzio could have maneuvered into this position but he sort of "peaked" after the Fiume crisis, afterwards failing to assemble a new movement or engage in self promotion as Mussolini did.

File: gabriled'annunziohouse.jpg (1MB, 3190x1845px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3190x1845px

>>2578503
While I agree he wasn't nearly as well positioned as Mussolini to assume power, he had the balls to make up for it. Before, and during the start of the Fiume crisis he was universally admired throughout the dejected military trenchochracy, and a number of important politicians even tried to encourage him to make a coup for the crown.

Don't forget that when the parliament actually did order the military to stop D'Annunzio, he got them to join him on his march on Fiume.

If he hadn't been so focused on building his little paradise on earth, he quite likely could have taken control of Italy during his peak. At that point he was a national poet and celebrated war hero during a time of national defeat and military disenfranchisement.

>>2578563
Yeah I'd like to think he could have done it as well, but he failed to capitalize on his popularity after Fiume I think. Mussolini's rise too was nearly a failure, for example. When he first set up his Fascist party in Milan he got mauled by the social democrats and other parties in the city's municipal elections. His movement was so weak, with so little followers at this point, that the communists mocked him by carrying a coffin outside his house after the election. But unlike D'Annunzio Mussolini bounced back from these dire straits, which to me further highlights the point that D'Annunzio, despite being so admired everywhere, failed to take the necessary action to conquer the state even though he had the means to do so.